HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-1980-09RESOLUTION NO. 9 -80
The Moab City Council, having passed Resolu-
tion 6-80 on the 24th day of July, A.D. 1980, and having heard
the report of the City Administrator at an Executive Meeting
on the evening of August 14, 1980, and having considered the
latter report and other matters, deem it appropriate to make
a statement to the citizens of the City of Moab with respect
to compliance had in accordance with the requirements of Resolu-
tion 6-80.
Accordingly, the following report was con-
sidered by Council and by Resolution unanimously made and
passed, duly adopted as the report of the Council to the public
with respect to the matters raised in Resolution 6-80, and
with respect to action taken by the Council simultaneously
with the adoption of this report.
REPORT
The City Council finds that as a result of
investigations required and directed by the Council to be per-
formed in its Resolution 6-80, many matters which had been
called to the Council's attention as requiring investigation
were well-founded. Without disclosing confidences or per-
sonnel actions which are appropriately kept confidential, the
Council reports that it has reviewed the seven items of Resolu-
tion 6-80 and with respect thereto has taken the following
actions:
1. Administrative Matters: Implicit in the
action taken in sub -paragraph "A" of item "1" in Resolution
6-80 WaS a f i nr7 i n,r 1-,17
•
chastise the Council and to criticize their action, making,
at that time, in a radio broadcast interview, a public
statement which, in the course of the subsequent investigation,
proved to be untrue. The Chief was admonished in the Resolu-
tion 6-80 to support the Council actions as a member of the
administration of City government, even when he had personally
disagreed with such actions. His conduct, therefore, was
grossly inconsistent with his role as Department Head in City
government, and in contradiction of specific instructions
given to him.
With respect to sub -paragraphs "B" and "C" of
item "l" of Resolution 6-80, the Council has not had the oppor-
tunity to evaluate the performance of the Chief of Police
inasmuch as the criticisms directed therein pertained to ad-
ministrative responsibilities at times in the future which
have yet to come under review.
2. Professional Conduct: Item "2" of Resolu-
tion 6-80 dealt with the maintenance of logs and the utiliza-
tion of incident reports. The City Council is not satisfied
with the mere addition of another form to satisfy the require-
ment that detailed logs be kept of duty time by law enforce-
ment officers. The broadly recognized police practice of
keeping detailed daily logs hardly needs restatement. It
was the desire of Council that this universal standard be
applied in Moab. It was not uniformly required in the past
and nothing in the present investigation indicates that steps
have been taken to see that it is done in the future. The
content of these logs is invaluable in refreshing an officer's
memory on the witness stand and in preparation for court mat-
ters, as well as in report writing.
their regular future use must be confirmed by observation of
the practice.
3. Police Department Policies and Procedures:
The investigations pursuant to Resolution 6-80 reveal that in
1966 Rules and Regulations for the Department of Police were
promulgated and approved by the City Council. No copies of
those Rules and Regulations were known to any present member
of the Council, all of whom were elected subsequent to the
date of enactment of the Rules and Regulations. No copies of
the Rules and Regulations have been found in the administra-
tive offices of the City government. Indeed, the only known
copy came to light during the period since the July 24th
action of Council. It is incredible to Council that certain
officers have spent considerable time on their own for the
last nine months drafting proposed sets of Rules and Regula-
tions without the apparent knowledge of the existence of the
1966 Regulations. With the extraordinary changes in law en-
forcement, and especially defendants' rights since 1966, Coun-
cil deems it imperative that the Rules and Regulations in
existence in 1966 be reviewed and updated. For that purpose,
a committee is established, to be chaired by Councilman Keith
Peterson, and composed of the Chief of Police, the City Admin-
istrator and the City Attorney. This committee will review
and redraft the Regulations of 1966 and submit the revision
to Council for appropriate action.
4. Training: In lieu of responding to the
Council's specific instructions to establish a schedule of
law enforcement training programs, the only report to the
Council thus far has been to summarize the training experience
of the officers on the force. This fails to reflect an intelli-
5. Report Made to City Council: With respect to
the relationship to other departments, the report is blatantly in error,
in the Council's opinion. Specific conduct by the Chief of Police
since the Resolution 6-80 has further strained relationships with the
Sheriff's Department rather than improve them.
6. Investigations: The items given the most atten-
tion by the press and public appear to have been five specific invest-
igations required of the Chief of Police pertaining to the conduct of
the officers of his Department. The charges made, if true, would be
of grave concern to the Council; however, weighing the charges in
general with the other complaints of Council as reflected in Resolution
6-80, the investigations directed by item "6" were intended to have no
greater priority, other than an earlier reporting date, than the
remainder of the items in the Resolution 6-80. The report itself indicates
as follows:
A. That two officers on the force at the time Resolu-
tion 6-80 was passed had previously been involved in the use or abuse
of controlled substances. Appropriate disciplinary action is to be
taken, as recommended by the Police Chief and approved by the Council;
with respect to that one officer remaining on the force. With res-
pect to the other officer, the matter is to be directed to the County
Attorney.
B. Ths use of vulgar or obscene language in certain
instances by certain officers has been admitted. Disciplinary action
recommended by the Chief of Police is deemed satisfactory by the Council.
C. The Police Chief has been unable to document any
specific incidences of excessive force used in arrest procedures.
D. The Chief of Police is unable to determine specific
incidences of harrassment of certain members of the community by law
enforcement officers. Such incidences as have come to the attention
the Councils determination that any violation of an informants confi-
dence shall be cause for immediate dismissal. The officer involved
is no longer on the force.
7. Special Programs: Inasmuch as no specific pro-
grams in law enforcement, such as park patrols, bar checks for minors,
and curfew enforcement and others, have been requested with a suffi-
cient passage of time to observe the implementation of such special
programs, the Council reserves comment upon the effectiveness of such
special programs.
CONCLUSIONS
The City Council feels that the action taken by it on
July 24, 1980, was well-founded. The Council is not satisfied with
the response required by Resolution 6-80, but accepts the efforts made
to date as having been made in good faith. The Council is of the
opinion that sufficient of the administrative deficiencies and pro-
fessional conduct abuses cited in the Resolution 6-80 have been
corrected that the Police Department is removed from its probationary
status.
However, Council expresses great concern about the
performance of certain administrative duties by the Chief of the
Police Department. Furthermore, the Council is extremely dis-
pleased at the action of the Chief of Police in his public statement
of July 25, 1980.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Acknowledging, however, that the Chief of Police has
admitted his actions of July 25 to have been improper and ill-ad-
Council in the correction of those deificiencies still remaining with
respect to the directions of Resolution 6-80 and the correction of the
deficiencies noted in this report.
Furthermore, Council has determined that satisfactory
investigations of complaints about Police behavior must of necessity
be conducted outside of the purview of the Police Department and accord-
ingly Council establishes the procedure that citizens having complaints
about Police Department conduct should address those complaints to the
Mayor or Councilperson of their choice, or to the City Administrator.
Complaints made to the Mayor and to a Councilperson shall be re-
layed to the City Administrator, omitting in detail only the name of
the complainant. The City Administrator shall then investigate the
complaint and report his findings to the citizen who first contacted
him or to the Councilperson who reported the complaint to him. In
the latter case, the Councilperson shall relate the disposition of the
investigation to the complaining citizen, who may thereafter allow his
name to be used for further investigations, which may lead to dis-
ciplinary action, but the release of the citizen's name shall only be
done with the citizen's consent. Rules and Regulations to be pro-
mulgated respecting the Department of Police shall provide further
details for such complaint procedure.
During the period of probation of the Chief of Police
as stated, the City Administrator shall continue to closely monitor
the progress of the Chief of the Police Department and the Department
itself in effecting compliance of this and the Resolution 6-80 of
July 24. The monitoring of the Police Department by the City Ad-
ministrator shall continue thereafter as a regular and routine as-
pect of City Administration.
DONE IN COUNCIL this 1�1�� day of August. A. D. 1980.